[ad_1]
Last month, Boise State hosted Florida University's economics professor Atlantic Luther William Luther for the Brandt Foundation Lecture Series, hoping he would answer the question "The bitcoin is a bubble?". In short, the conference was informative: Luther treated the basics of Bitcoin, blockchain and other aspects of Bitcoin that the public might not know. However, there was a part of the discussion that definitely lacks Luther's lesson: Bitcoin is terrible for the environment, but nobody talks about it because of the financial implications. Although this problem is not Mr. Luther's fault, the conference itself is representative of more attention to the other things we can get from developments in various sectors, regardless of the environmental cost.
Since the price of Bitcoin has skyrocketed $ 1,000 to $ 17,000 towards the end of 2017, people started taking it much more seriously. This mainstream appeal stems largely from the recognition that Bitcoin is financially sound. Transactions do not require a third party, making them more secure; purchases made with Bitcoin are not tracked, making them more secure than other forms of payment and the list goes on. Bitcoin must be extracted, which means that to "find" them, a computer must use a complex algorithm to solve mathematical problems, and in return the user is rewarded with a certain amount of Bitcoin. That's fine, except that the extraction process uses a ton of electricity. According to the Digitech Bitcoin's energy consumption index, Bitcoin consumes about 32 terawatt of energy each yearwhich is enough energy to feed three million US households. Ultimately, moving our paradigm from climate-oriented positions to cost-effective structures is detrimental to global issues.
The main reason why no one is taking action on the suddenly popular cryptocurrency is due to its relatively "irrelevant" impact on the environment. In the end, this is the same excuse that has been repeatedly used by world leaders as a reason not to act on climate change. When President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreements, he did so on the pretext of saving the economy, declaring the environment irrelevant to potential financial benefits. This is more problematic if we consider that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity, like carbon emissions have quadrupled since 1950, indicative of an increase of 1.5 parts per million each year since then. Bitcoin can not directly increase carbon emissions, but its impact on our electricity consumption is staggering and requires our responsibility. If you are thinking about investing in Bitcoin, try investing in it on a permanent basis rather than mining. You can also consider the use of a company called 4NEW, which uses waste from agriculture and families across the country to feed their cryptocurrency mines. Although not a perfect solution, it offers a potential mechanism to facilitate the effects later.
If you feel an undeniable need to invest in Bitcoin, however, there are ways to extract what does not kill the environment. The Blockchain for Climate Foundation seeks to use the same technology that decentralizes and encrypts Bitcoin transactions to connect the carbon accounts of international actors. Using the Paris climate agreements, Blockchain for Climate aims to unify the carbon goals of each country in a multilateral effort. The best way to prioritize the fight against climate change is to support organizations and causes that make real changes using any means possible.
Cryptocurrency is killing the environment, and at a time when our highest levels of government refuse to prioritize the change that will save the planet, it is up to us to make the necessary changes. William Luther is not to blame for these problems, but do not let the discourses on finance and economics leave you too far from the real problems we face.
